John R W Stott The Scheme of Salvation as described by John

Introduction

I was reading John Stott's Letters of John and was blown away by his description of the salvation message at the heart of both the Letters and the Gospel of John. Basically it goes as follows:

¹"In our natural state we are given over to the devil (read world) who has sinned since the beginning (1 John 3:8, 2:16, 4:5). We therefore sin (1 John 3:4) and have walked in the darkness (1:6, 2:11) and are spiritually blind (2:11) and dead (3:14). But God loved us and sent his son to the savour to the world (4:14), that we might live (4:9). This was his one and only (4:9) who was from the beginning (1:1) but who became flesh (4:2) and then laid down his life for us (3:16) to take away sin (3:5). To him testimony has been given by those who saw (1:2-3, 4:14), but especially by God (5:9) and the Spirit (5:6). We should therefore accept (5:9) this message as it has been attested (5:10) and acknowledge him (4:2, 3). By believing in him (5:13) we pass from death to life (3:14), for from him we have life (5:11) which is from God (2:29, 3:9, 5:4, 5:18). It is only via following the Word that lives in us that we can find salvation and overcome the world as Christ has done."

There is more in Stott's original tract but as stated above I was only including the basics. I think that this message is both confronting and reassuring. It's of course the same message one finds all through the New Testament. But how simple a message it is, God saves and loves us all enough to sacrifice his only son, who took on the very essence of Man that he might suffer for us. Yet within John we find all the allegory and strands that draw out this message and provide it with both the body and beauty that one finds in the form of the Epistles. The confrontation in the message is in it's simplicity how does Humanity so very driven to judge and be judged accept the gift on offer without looking for the catch. The fun thing is there is no catch, well not one we recognise as a bad one any way. As John points out to us acceptance of this message is one given with a full heart God has no truck with half hearted commitments, we are enjoined to give over all we fear, all we treasure to God for protection and resolution.

notes

¹ p21-23 TNTC The Letters of John, John R.W. Stott

Why a Study on John

Introduction

I have started this study mostly for my own benefit, it is a collection of my reflections on the nature of John's Epistle to Ephesus which includes the three letters of John.  I do not pretend to be a biblical scholar and this is very much a loose collection of ideas and notes.  I especially would like to thank my dear friend Anton for suggesting that I do something about increasing my understanding of the word of god.  I am indebted to all the fantastic bible studies I attended while a member of Crossroads Christian Church, which gave me the basic grounding in the Word which I am using here in this study, however all heresies are my own and do not reflect on the fine people at Crossroads.

 

It has already led to a improvement in my spiritual life once again proving that regular time spent in contemplation of the Word can only benefit believers and non-believers alike. 

 

Resources

I have drawn on a limited number of resources in putting this study together they are as follows:

 

The New International Version of the Bible

The Bible Speaks Today Series :  The Message of John's Letters as written by David Jackman

The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries:  The Letters of John as written by John R. W. Stott

The IVP New Bible Commentaries

Pod casts of Crossroads Christian Church

 

All misinterpretations I make are as noted above of course my own.

  

 

 

John at Ephesus Part Two

Radical Treatment for Sin

Verse 8:  how is it that the more we walk in the light the more we become aware of our sinful nature, what lies at the base of some groups teachings that we can live without sin?

 ⁸If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.

 

Central to the teachings of Christ Redeemer is the concept that we have something for which redemption is required.  Looking around us every day how can we doubt the nature and importance of sin as a motivator of action within the Human Community.  This verse which is so simple it argues rightly that to deny our sinful nature is to deny our relationship with god, who has sacrificed his only son so that we might be freed from the punishment our sinful natures warrant. 

 

It is important to note that this claim to a sinless nature is fundamentally different to the claim of freedom from sin that is evoked in Romans 6.  Romans 6 seeks to point out that we should no longer be slaves to sin and that we should instead see ourselves as slaves to righteousness.  Importantly this verse does not claim that we do not have a sinful nature but rather seeks to exalt us in seeking to follow the path of Christ in not allowing sin to rule our lives.  The difference is one of degrees however at its core one argues we must master a part of our inherent natures with the help of god and one argues that the nature itself does not exist.

As previously noted our relationship with god as a source of light ensures that our lives are illuminated by God, like any bright light more detail will become visible to us as we walk in his light.  We also clearly gain the advantage of his insights as we grow into maturity with him.  Note the Verse at Hebrews 4:13 for he can see all things and nothing is hidden from him ( please note this is a paraphrasing of the verse).  This seems to be the source of the most holy of us being constantly reminded of their own sinful natures. 

 

Those groups within the christian movement which seek to step away from the recognition of our own sinful natures seem to exaggerate the release from sin argued for in Romans 6,  they also seem to be suggesting that as Christ was free from sin we must be able to achieve a similar level of freedom thanks to his sacrifice on the cross.  It is clear that this is a misunderstanding of the verses in question.

Verse 10 what are some of the ways we might deny we have sinned?

If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.

 

Human history has been replete with attempts to redefine the meaning and nature of sin.  The bible shows us that even in Israel under God it was easy for people to be misled in allowing sin to flourish under the cover of new words to describe old sins.  In the modern word we are surrounded by attempts to use relativistic forms of morality including models based on utilitarian ethics and attempts to use evolutionary psychology to redefine the nature of wrong and right.  We live in a world where personal choice has frequently been allowed to drive the agenda on these issues in a sense allowing selfish activities to become more that OK, they have become morally defensible in the modern context.  This flies counter to the nature of god as the immutable lord and generator of a moral code which is both true (in a philosophical sense) and unchanging.  Christ fought with those who had taken the cloak of righteousness and covered their selfish ways (Luke 11: 37-53), how can we do any less.

 

If we do not accept the sinful actions we take and recognise them for what they are then what does that say about Christ's words to us in the new testament, specifically how do we
address the words relating to sin used through out the bible (Romans 3:9-23).  Without Sin the world would be a paradise as described in the genesis verses, the fall which follows the rebellion of Adam and Eve is a depiction of the results of sin (Genesis 3).  Clearly the world is more like the world described in Genesis 3 than that described in the earlier verses of Genesis.  We just need to look at the terrible loss of life experienced under Stalin, Mao and Hitler to understand that a rejection of god and the moral principles he espouses are tantamount to a rejection of any reliable form of moral code.

Verse 9 Holds out the remedy for Sin what is the importance of John's use of the word confess?

⁹If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
 

It is clear that based on the writing of John the solution to the challenge raised in both verse 8 and 10 is to recognise our sinful nature and confess the sins we commit to god.  In doing so we open ourselves up to his light which seeks out darkness in all of its forms.  We are also in a sense rejecting the temptations on offer to both ignore our sinful nature and the impact of the actions we take when we surrender to that nature.  I cannot see a more clear link to the nature of believers discussed under verse 1:8 which discusses the relationship to be a stronger believer and having a greater conviction of Sin.

 

As long as we approach god with an open and honest heart with an intent for true repentance it is clear that he will forgive us of our sins (Jer 31:34).  God is faithful and just always keeping his promises as he has done with relation to the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross, which frees us from the impact of our sinful natures.  His forgiveness is already a given for those who repent of their sins and approach him as the followers of Christ (Romans 3:22-26).   With this in mind how is that we can for a second follow the suggestions made under above under verses 8 & 10?  how is it with forgiveness freely given we can fall for such a clear lie?  The only answer that can be given is that we as humans seek the complex answers to the simplest questions, it is also clear that in rejecting the formula given for repentance we avoid the need to examine our own actions in the light of god.  Repentance is a difficult thing as the true impact of your sins become visible to you and you can not avoid a recognition of the impacts of our actions. 

John at Ephesus Part One

what do we know about the probable author of the letters

 1.  In all likelihood it was John the author of the gospel of john - the apostle john probably the most beloved of the disciples John seems to me to be the most allegorical of the disciples.  He is first mentioned as one of the fishermen who is recruited to be a fisher of men (Matthew 10:2).  John was also responsible for the authoring of the book of revelations.  John was in attendance at the transfiguration of Christ (Mark 9:2).  John asked for the right to sit at the right hand of Jesus and was rebuked for it along with all the disciples.  John  is identified as the beloved disciple via a process of elimination

1. 
   
   John, James and peter were present at the transfiguration
   
   
2. 
   
   John, James and peter are in attendance at the garden of Gethsemane
   
   
3. 
   
   James is killed by Herod and peter is captured and imprisoned (Acts 12:1-3)
   
   
4. 
   
   Peter sees the beloved disciple (John 21:20) thus ruling him out

How is the moral background against which he wrote the letters portrayed

 In johns eyes it is clear that John is concerned about the moral nature of the church within the city in particular it is clear that John is concerned that Christians lead lives of value and worship if they are to be counted as authentic and respectful.  John sets out to challenge the nature of permissiveness that existed at the time from the limited information given in the book.  Based on the words shared by David MacDonald it seems clear that John is dealing with fake or counterfeit Christianity.  I think this threat exists today in many ways - probably the most obvious way is the heretical movements that challenge the church (Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses) and the movements which claim a church based legitimacy but in truth have no such connection (i.e. church of Scientology).  I think the second tier are those that claim a connection to the main stream but either strip Christianity of its core truths (some of the more conservative movements do this by ignoring the nature of Christ's calling to us and the more liberal movements which strip Christianity of its core message of salvation).

What were the main elements of the heresy that John was writing to combat in the words of the gospels 

 1.  gnostic beliefs that all matter is evil - this leads to the innate separation of the body and the spirit and therefore destroys the principle of the bodily resurrection this undermines the principle of suffering but also separates Christ from Jesus the man.

 

2.  sin does not matter - it is not important and that it has no significance in our own lives - it undermines the importance of the work of Jesus as the redeemer. it works on the principle that once you are enlightened you will not need to be worried about sin as somehow your new enlightened state will make you immune to the risks of sin and the dangers of the flesh.  Unlike other heresies it seems this one worked on a principle that sin and its impacts had no hold on you - you could however indulge in carnal activities they just had no impact on your salvation.  This differs from other heresies which worked on the principle that all fleshly activities should be ignored or resisted (especially true of the perfecti under the cathar heresy)

 

David Jackman argues we need to approach the letters differently to Paul's letters

 

John is not trying to argue a point he is simply building a series of messages, unlike Paul there is a lack of structures approach and the heavy use of allegory seems to confuse and at times mask the approach to the letters.  Where as Paul's agenda is often clear at the outset of a letter - John relies on allegory and descriptive language to help him get his message across.  John also frequently works to place the message in a loop coming back to the key issue or point repeatedly.

 
Prologue (1 John 1:1-4)

Verses 1-2 - what does John mean when he refers to the word of life - how does it assist in unlocking the meaning of the prologue itself?

 ¹That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. ²The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us.

 

Clearly the first verse refers to John's ability to represent himself as an apostle specifically he evidences that he has seen, heard and touched the word of life which was from the beginning.  Logically the only inference one can draw from this strong claim is that john is laying claim to his apostolic authority as one of the original if he first followers of Christ.  The second verse and the beautiful way he covers it can also only be seen as a reference to Christ as he is the bringer of the word of life incarnate.  he also draws down the nature of Christ as eternal at this point by linking that which was from the beginning with the word of life.  you can see the importance of this when you compare the heresy John was addressing in his words - after all he creates a nature of Christ as both physical (seen, heard and touched) with the metaphysical (from the beginning).  Linking with his already strongly worded claim to a special apostolic nature is the following phrases in verse 2 of which draws not only his personal experience of Christ but goes further in linking his activities post his personal time with his experience of Jesus as he says "we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the father and has appeared to us.

Verses 3-4 think of the way we often use fellowship in christian circles what does this verse tell us about what it believes we should see as the meaning of the word

We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. ⁴We write this to make our^[a] joy complete. 

 

John here refers to the nature of the fellowship he and the other disciples had with Jesus the Christ,  this therefore draws to a personal and very intimate relationship which those who follow the teaching of the apostles are invited to experience.  The particular word used for relationship here is used in Greek to refer to a marriage style relationship, this clearly indicates the strength of the relationship on offer.  What is also clear is the importance in the teachings of the original apostles in helping bring people into this relationship with god.  As the relationship in question has such a strong bind it is also clear that the only way for Christians to build this sort of intimacy is via a relationship with god.  Fellowship is clearly intended to be done in such a way that places god at the centre and our fellowship with other Christians draws from our relationship with god.   

Walking in the Light (1 John 1:5-7)

Verse 5 what is the deeper meaning to God is Light 

This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 

 

God was the creator of the universe and with his first words created light and brought life to the universe.  He was and is both the bringer of light and is made of light continuing the logic of the incarnate nature of god.  God can have no darkness within him and is therefore the pure and perfect god who exists above all things.  His nature also illuminates the world with his light allowing us to see and understand the universe in a much greater way than we could without him.  We are also as all living things are given life by the presence of light, we can not exist without it.  Gods nature is also displayed through the use of the allegory of light as a metaphor for good and truth, with the reference to shadow attached to the concepts of evil and lies.  Overall it seems clear that God as light is a theological construct with a number of implicit meanings all of which could be seen as displaying the many faceted nature of god.

 

Verses 6-7 what are the tests we can apply to those who claim to have fellowship with the Lord

If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. ⁷But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin. 

 

Clearly the simplest test is too see whether a person claims a relationship with Christ but lives a life that walks in darkness as opposed to light, that is to say as has happened with a number of leaders in all denominations.  Case in point is those leaders who have fallen into sexual immorality which is a terrible form of sin but still stood at the front of their congregations and led services.  Some of the greatest TV Evangelists have also displayed a behaviour close to this with their strong materialist bent. Considering the nature of John's concerns it is also clear that john is concerned about those who would seek to redefine the nature of god and its relationship with us as people.  Any effort to redefine sin and to reduce its importance is critical to understanding the nature of the risk those people bring to a fellowship with god as it can only be a deeply flawed or even illusory one if you have turned from the teachings of the Apostles and Christ himself.  Finally I think that john seeks to return us to the focus of his works which in this case to reiterate the importance of the fellowship with Christ as the saviour and how that fellowship is what drives christian relationships - any attempt to displace this fellowship would be seen as a direct attack on the church itself.